Before Russia, Napoleon was a powerful wolf. Afterwards he was a starving fox surviving on nerve and speed. There was no recovery from the loss of more than 500,000 men.

The fact of the matter is, Waterloo was a ‘2 VS 1’ battle, this is ultimately why Napoleon lost. The Prussian assault on Plancenmois drew away ALL the remaining French infantry reserves, which is why Neys cavalry charge never received support. It’s quite likely had the infantry reserves been available, the British squares would have been decimated. It was the timely arrival of the Prussians that prevented a proper assault on the British centre, This myth that Ney was incompetent or had PTSD etc isn’t true, he spent a life time leading the most formidable army in Europe, he had good reason to keep launching successive charges, the British centre was buckling, and in an effort to prevent them from reforming, a hasty cavalry charge was opted for, which would force them into squares and thus keep their formations vulnerable to artillery and the planned infantry assault, the charge was rushed to prevent the British from reforming the centre. Ney then kept buying as much time was possible and kept charging to keep the British in squares, however due to the growing Prussian assault, no infantry ever became available to exploit this. So in a desperate bid Napoleon sent forth his guard units and the rest his history….. I’m English, but I personally believe had the Prussians not been on the scene the divert French troops, we likely would have lost, in a close battle, probably similar in nature to lingy or a smaller scale Borrodino. Equally the Prussians also wouldn’t have done it without Wellingtons army. It was a solid alliance that won Waterloo, that AND Napoleon was over the hill and his army full of conscripts and his commanders at the end of their tether. There are multiple books you can read on Waterloo, that give a better insight and more sensible look, as opposed to the standard narrative. ‘The myth of Waterloo’ is a good one. Also if you study the 100 days campaign, there were far more engagements than just lingy, quatrebra and Waterloo, the French won majority of the engagements leading up to Waterloo. It was the ability of both the Prussians and Anglo-Dutch armies to converge and surround Napoleon that ultimately tipped the balance.

The often overlooked future of Waterloo is that even of Napoleon had won, ultimate defeat was inevitable. He never had the army or logistics to sustain a campaign against the Allied armies. If not Waterloo then the next battle.

@rhysnichols8608

10 ай бұрын

He could have made a negotiated peace, which would buy time to raise a proper army before the coalitions inevitably declared war on him again. It was a long shot but retaking then Netherlands, knocking out the Prussians and Anglo armies, and then swooping south to attack the Austrians , his Marshall’s did hold the line against them while Napoleon was in Belgium, so it’s possible he could’ve won Waterloo and maybe just maybe gain a victory against the Austrians, then negotiated from a position of strength, ultimately it was extremely unlikely tho

@ravenclaw8975

10 ай бұрын

Yes, you are correct. An Austrian Army was south-west of Paris at this time and the Russians were closing in as well. He was doomed!

@ravenclaw8975

10 ай бұрын

Sorry, my bad. The Austrians were South-East of Paris. Have a good one!

Hmmm. I would argue the following 1) Davout may not have made much difference compared with Grouchy, lack of cavalry follow up post Ligny and poor staff communication resulted in Grouchy not being able to play a part in the Battle. Yes Davout had exhibited excellent independent command during previous campaigns but he had also grown weary of Napoleon by this stage. Would he have prevented the Prussians getting in between him and the French at Waterloo, probably not. Soult was in the wrong role and should take some of the blame for how the campaign progressed. Ney was appointed late and not given the resources to make an effective corps commander from the get go. Did Ney lack bravery at Waterloo? I would argue not. Apart from Jerome most of the French divisional/corps commanders were experienced and the best available or willing to fight. 2) I do not believe that the British were 1st class in general, remember even the guards were routed/ made a strategic withdraw at Quatre Bras. The British Army could be very much considered a Germano/Dutch/ British alliance with some very strong allied troops mixed in with militia units. The main weakness being communication and trust between nationalities. That Wellington was everywhere on the battleField points very much to the senior commands perceived nervousness with regard to morale. The French had a better army than 1813, 1814 and won notable victories in those campaigns. War weariness I believe was similar in all European armies by this stage. 3) French troops were good given the limitations leading up to the campaign. Morale was high amongst the rank and file with experienced cadres forming the backbone, however there was distrust of some officers who had royalist sympathies, a much reduced imperial guard and a cavalry arm that had not recovered from the 1812-14 campaigns certainly played a part. 4) Prussians 1815 best army? The only battle they won on the campaign was Waterloo, so French vs Prussian score 4 :1 in 1815. I agree staff were good and they had the numbers to grind out a strategic win. Had d’Erlon arrived at Ligny would they had routed and taken any further action? 5) Napoleon lost strategic initiative before Ligny and Quatre Bras. Napoleon was not the best tactical commander, I agree he was overconfident and had the issue of poor weather at crucial times. Poor health may have paid a part but also fate was not on his side, and a full frontal battle of attrition on a small battlefront with an enemy on your flank is likely to end up in defeat regardless of who your team is. Overall even had he reached Brussels would he had stopped Austria and Russia repeating the 1814 campaign and a march on Paris almost certainly not.

One has to remember that on the day of the battle, Bonaparte had stomach trouble probably constipation and had a bad night before with much pain and got little sleep. Also he split his army to try to keep the Prussian army from partaking but his army failed to engage the troops, instead they raided the baggage train in error as they had taken a wrong road and got the wrong end of the Prussian army. Bonaparte had 25% of his army absent for six hours at least.

I agree with "geebards" as did Karl von Clausewitz who felt Napoleon should have followed his own precepts and herded Blucher to the north and east. away from Wellington, and to Prussia's utter destruction, leaving Ney to do what he did best, a moving rear guard action drawing Wellington into a ground favorable to the French once the Prussians were no longer a threat. I agree that Napoleon was the primary reason for the loss at Waterloo which should never have been fought on that ground of Wellington's choosing. Like Borodino, a horrible waste of the best Army in Europe, without a hint of tactical strategy. I disagree that there was no need to rest the troops after Ligny. They had marched nonstop for 3 days & then fought a pitched, village to village & house to house battle. That was an infantry & artillery battle. Napoleon could have rested his infantry, lots of breaks & easy cadence on the march and still be in pursuit. But you don't chase a defeated army with infantry, you pursue with cavalry, preferably light cavalry & horse artillery. I don't think the Prussian army was the best in the world at the time, otherwise, why'd they lose at Ligny ? They might have been on the road to being the best but not yet. The British might have been the best overall but they were still beatable in 1815, just not by Napoleon or Ney, and not on Wellington's terms at Waterloo.

By 1812 the Allies (especially the British) knew how to beat the French. They had learned. The French - Napoleon included - had not. Also, most of the British army of the Spanish campaign were fighting the Americans at this time. Most of Wellington’s army were allied contingents.

Given that the Allied army of Wellington (not British) were caught dispersed and were barely able to regroup at Quatre Bras, I've always believed that Napoleon's switch from Eastern to Western thrust was a grave blunder. He could have kept Ney in the field to block and follow up Wellington to Waterloo whilst chasing us Blucher with his main force with a higher likelihood of a decisive victory given they were licked and on the run. Good fun discussion - another great post.

@honzo1078

11 ай бұрын

Except that Ney was a monarchist traitor. His behavior on the field at Waterloo was criminal.

@raka522

10 ай бұрын

It was already evening when the battle at Ligny ended, and Napoleon's men would hardly have been able to follow the Prussians at once. It should not be forgotten that Napoleon was even forced to play his last ace and send his old guard into battle to achieve victory! The Prussians were NOT on the run, but withdrew more or less orderly from the battlefield. Napoleon even assumed that he had defeated the Prussian army, the Prussians had lost 16,000 men, but the French had also lost 12,000 soldiers. And Napoleon did not understand or want to believe one important detail: At the latest since the wars of liberation in 1813, even a defeat no longer had a major negative impact on even the simple Prussian soldiers, nor could he break their fighting spirit. What Napoleon meant to the French soldier, Blücher meant to them. If Napoleon had wanted to fight Blücher again on one of the following days, he would have had to deal not only with 3 but with all 4 Prussian corps! I wouldn't necessarily have wanted to bet on Napoleon's victory. To top it all off, there is one major difference between the rank and file soldier in Wellington's army and Blüchers Soldiers: the former just did their job, while the Prussians heartily hated the French for all that the French troops had done in the German lands in the last years . I still remember an eyewitness report where a captain had to pull a Landwehr soldier behind him by force when retreating from Ligny because he didn't want to stop fighting the French.

Id argue you missed the most important factor - the absence of Marshall Louis Berthier. Berthier was Napoleon’s secret weapon - his chief of staff. If napoleon was the architect of his victories, Berthier was the man who interpreted the plan and built those victories. Many many people overlook the significance of Berthier. But if Berthier had been with Napoleon the disastrous countermarches of quatre bras/ligny likely would not have occurred and those battles would have been more decisive. Grouchy would have certainly had a tighter leash. On top of that, a lot of napoleon’s problems at waterloo were his marshalls getting out of control and not co-ordinating. Berthier was the reason that never happened before. Napoleon was always adamant that if he’d had Berthier with him he would have defeated the allied armies. Thats an opinion that is impossible to overlook. When you say that Napoleon was the main reason he lost at waterloo thats not quite correct. In napoleon’s victories it was always napoleon + berthier. Berthier ensured napoleon’s armies enacted napoleon’s battlefield vision. Without berthier, napoleon was left to perform berthier’s role (which he couldn’t - napoleon was at best average at staff work) and rely on mediocre fill ins. Incidentally, Berthier was an average to below average battlefield commander. When in command his performances were not so good. But as a second in command and staff commander he had no equal at the time. Napoleon and Berthier both had weaknesses as senior officers but they complemented each other - the weakness of one was the specialty of the other. Together they were the best command of any army of the time (and maybe, ever). At waterloo half of that command was missing. Other people possibly understood Berthier’s value to Napoleon. He died before he could rejoin Napoleon on the hundred days - by falling out of an upstairs window. The details of his death have always been mired in mystery. Its a bit sad that Berthier has been overlooked by history. He should have been top of your list in this video.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

You're absolutely right about Bertier. I meant to say (but didn't!) That it was things within Napoleon's control I was considering (that's why I didn't focus too much on the weather) he couldn't really help that Berthier was assassi...I mean had an unfortunate accident... You're absolutely right though, it would have Neen very different were he there. You mention he was an average commander, one of my favourite reads were the letter he sent to napoleon in 1809 begging him to get to Austria because he's got no idea what to do! 🤣 I'd also say you're spot on about him being overlooked. He's just mot as 'sexy' as a Mey, South, Davout or even Grouchy. But, as the old saying goes, amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics, and by that metric Bertier was the most professional of them all

@flashgordon6670

10 ай бұрын

Napoleon was great at blaming others and delegating the blame for his failures. Not so great with his successes you’ll note.

Definitely immediate issues like entrusting way too much of the tactical handling at Waterloo to Ney and sending Grouchy off on what was essentially a wild goose chase after Blucher. The broader strategic issues like the absence of Berthier as chief of staff leading to delays and miscommunications, and the overall lack of solid commanders with many like Soult or Davout having to take up administrative duties.

oooh, 2nd Corps was under Reille, Jerome was only a Divisional commander

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Ah, sorry you are right.

"Style" is the right word for it. I remember Pickett shouting, "That's the style, Lo! That's the style!" at Armistead after he put his hat on his sword in the movie Gettysburg.

Napoleons escape from Elba is one of the strangest anecdotes of history.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

If you had a hit film that ended with him being exiled, but the sequel had him escaping the audience would roll their eyes! The truth really can be more dramatic than fiction!

@anglophone412

11 ай бұрын

@@NapoleonicWargaming If history played out like a movie, I reckon that Napoleon would have died a gloriously at Leipzig. I like your content by the way. The French Revolution and Napoleonic wars seem to be overlooked in popular history.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

@@anglophone412 thanks man!

I would argue that the British at Waterloo had few of the Peninsular Veterans who had been sent to America for the War of 1812 and hadn't yet returned to Europe2 Wellington had even said if he had had them he would have won the battle in a couple of hours.

@merrybutcher2978

11 ай бұрын

Napoleon lost his army in Russia 3 years earlier.

@duncanmacpherson2013

11 ай бұрын

@@merrybutcher2978 The thousands he lost in Russia were the best troops France had

@duncanmacpherson2013

11 ай бұрын

He famously said that his soldiers at Waterloo were the scum of the earth. In other words they were not the best soldiers Britain had to offer. However they proved good enough

@jonmce1

11 ай бұрын

Of the army at Waterloo about 30k were British and of those about 1/4 regiments that had never fought a battle.

@raka522

10 ай бұрын

And I would say Wellington would have believed the Prussian reports about Napoleon's army and would not have wasted so much time in Brussels if there had been no Waterloo, Napoleon would have already met his end in Ligny...

ALWAYS great videos!! THUMBS UP Mate!!💯

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Thanks bud!

Despite his mistakes and poor personal performance Napoleon almost won the battle when the French troops seized 'La Haye Saint" late afternoon. At that point the British (allied) left flank was practically broken when the French brought their artillery over there and started hammering the British squares from a close distance. They were saved by the Prussians who arrived on time! In my opinion had the British retreated at that point the Prussians would have done the same at Plancenoit......giving Napoleon a small (not decisive) victory. I also though believe that even if Napoleon had gain a small tactical victory at Waterloo (like he did in Borodino) that wouldn't have changed his fate.....since there were more than 200.000 Russian and Austrian troops waiting in Germany to "finish off" his tired and decimated army... Excellent video.....regards from Greece!

One key thing I think also must be talked about, is there were a large number of spies and double agents in Napoleons army. History marche made a great documentary about it, Napoleon had successfully fooled the allies into misunderstanding his intended movements, it was French spies who then informed the Prussians of Napoleons real objective, and thus they were able to intercept him successfully at lingy, and delay him. There’s so many dimensions to this, but I feel it’s important to acknowledge the information war.

@NapoleonicWargaming

10 ай бұрын

Yeah, that's something I'd not even considered, and you're right!

I think you hit the nail on the head with Napoleon simply not being the commander he once had been. Lethargic and complacent. Might have got away with it commanding one of his previous armies, with some of the former leaders. But not with the hastily assembled force he had in the 100 Days,

Waterloo was not a British victory, but an allied one: Belgians, Dutch, King's German Legion, Hanoverians and of course, the Prussians, all of whom were integral to Napoleon's fate. I understand that, with Wellington as C-in-C, the Brits like to take the bragging rights. British troops were battle-hardened no doubt, but please acknowledge the contribution of others.

@flashgordon6670

10 ай бұрын

Did the British lose? No. Who made the largest contribution to the war effort in total? That’s right, the British! Who was fighting against Napoleon at Waterloo from start to finish? You’re right again, the British! Who invented and employed Shrapnel shells that were a huge advantage at Waterloo for the Allies? You’re getting good at this, the British! Who planned as well as commanded the Allies at Waterloo, that would be Napoleon’s final nail in his coffin? Arthur Wesley the Duke of Wellington, who was? Yes you’re learning British! Who had the largest % of the Allies at Waterloo that actually engaged with the French for the duration of the battle? I’ll let you figure it out. I rest my case and I hope this helps, now I educated you?

@ravenclaw8975

10 ай бұрын

@@flashgordon6670 You obviously no very little about the Napoleonic Wars. Were the British at Borodino, or in strength at Leipzig, Napoleon's greatest defeats? Why not read a book and learn something!

@ravenclaw8975

10 ай бұрын

@@flashgordon6670 Did I say the British lost? NO! I said that the Brits shouldn't take all of the credit. Please read things carefully before you try to counter what people have said, or what you think they have said. You should read a book about Waterloo so you know the actual composition of the British Army. Roughly one third of it were not British and that doesn't include von Bulcher's Prussian army which saved the day when General Maitland's infantry were down to five rounds per man.

@flashgordon6670

10 ай бұрын

​@@ravenclaw8975 No you’re wrong. Waterloo was Napoleon’s greatest defeat, bc he was defeated then once and for all and so Waterloo is the most important battle of all history. I read plenty of books ty and none that are full of the one sided propaganda that you’ve been brainwashed with. Checkmate asswipe. Case closed I win you lose. Have another go if you think you’re smart enough? Somehow I doubt it.

@flashgordon6670

10 ай бұрын

​@@ravenclaw8975 You obviously don’t even understand what you wrote yourself. “Waterloo was not a British victory.” Yes it was and is, you can’t be both right and wrong, it doesn’t work that way I’m afraid. “The Brits like to take the bragging rights.” - Yeees bc the Brits were the key Ally that masterminded Napoleon’s demise and orchestrated it. Like the manager of a football team who played on the pitch as well and scored the most goals and football managers take credit all the time, even ones who don’t play and score goals. Case closed I win you lose. Have another go if you think you’re smart enough? Somehow I doubt it. Checkmate asswipe.

New guy in America building armies and loving it! Thanks for the presentation.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it! Welcome to the madness!

I think you covered it. All good points. Cheers

Very good observations on the weakness of Napoleon and his armies effort in the 100 days. All five are good examples of his lack or loss of the killer instinct. 1) The effort of pushing his offensive north against the allies, to split them was lost on the 17th. Your comment of Napoleon being lethargic is spot on. Bedford Forrest, ACW made the quote (loosely), 'Be there firstist with the mostest.' 2) Giving Davout the left wing against Wellington would have crushed the allies at Quatre Bras, with what troops he had before Wellington could have reacted. 3) Last, the hemorroids issue is bigger than recorded. The poisons will disrupt the body, affect the brain, the knife like pain will keep any person from seeing and reacting to what he is doing. Garlic laced foods only increased the issue and I expect the 'membrane's were prolapsed (hanging out his ass)!

Happy Waterloo day, unless of course, you is French

@ronaldmessina4229

11 ай бұрын

Monsieur, the correct english is You ARE French, not is

@clive3490

11 ай бұрын

@@ronaldmessina4229 The quote is from a Welsh TV character in the show, "It Ain't 'Arf 'Ot Mum"

I like Logistics and supply and like diving into Napoleonics as to how they operated. This leads to everyones view on Grouchy. What is missed 90% of the time by commentators is Wavre was a Bridge/ street/ cork bottleneck that Napoleon /Grouchy never knew about in advance . A river that ran outside the town was a ravine with two narrow bridges . Once fighting started the Prussians had sharpshooters knocking off their commanders attacking them bridges. Then when houses where on fire slowed them down even further . Finally the roads to the battle were in high sided gullies full of vegetation. Take a read of how Grouchy retreated to Paris guides me how bad His situation advancing was . Didnt help the retreat from Waterloo but

The eruption ofTambora is the reason the spring was so wet and yes it affected the whole campaign.

1. Rielle was in command of II Corps. Jerome was a division commander in II Corps. 2. Grouchy's conduct after Ligny is a direct result of Napoleon's berating of Generals in the period leading up to that point. He adhered to his orders. Had he been in charge of the Cavalry reserve, spikes for the British cannon probably would have been issued. 3. The initial attack of I Corps, because the commanders formed them I'd Divisional Columns, rather than battalion columns by division, led to the destruction of 16 battalions. Without those battalions for the rest of the day, Ney's cavalry charges could not succeed. Also, Jerome had sucked in the bulk of II Corps in the attack on Hougomont, when four howitzers, and a few 12 lb. pieces could have resolved the issue. 4. Borodino, and the Campaigns of 1813, and 1814 were fought by men in columns largely because of the lack of quality. Napoleon's Army at Waterloo was of very high guality, but its morale was fragile, understandably so.

1) He didn't establish air superiority.

again the muddy ground was "swallowing the shell and negating its effect also the fact that Wellington also kept the bulk of his troops sheltered behind the ridge line also made the French cannonading less effective

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

I think the reverse slope is the real winner here. Even if the ground had been bone dry, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made due to the positioning of the men

@nirnman

11 ай бұрын

@@NapoleonicWargaming I remember seeing a programme on one of the channels wher they were examining the efficacy of the Napoleonic cannons and in one bit they explained and used a cannon to fire a shell as opposed to round shot or shrapnel (which the French did not use) onto the presoaked ground to replicate conditions at Waterloo and the shell buried into the wet ground and while it exploded it was "muffled by the wet earth

I think it probably came down to resolve, the allied force took a battering and still stood which was pretty much unprecedented for the British and their allies considering they didn't have much reason to be overly confident the Prussians could support them. That really speaks to a determination of all parties to stop Napoleon and his momentum there and we have to remember that for the allies a victory meant an end to war and self determination and freedom for each nation, whereas for the French even victory just meant another decade of war.

The failed Invasion of Russia was something the French military did not recover from .

I think combined factors of improvement in quality of Prussian forces and lose of veterans which were key in French military at the time . Also fact some of his better commanders were not available and his best number 2 who was crucial for the structure and operation was not with him at Waterloo aswel .plus wellington was also crucial as Prussian would not come if wellington was not in command.

Nice one Tim , that must of hurt lol.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Haha. Well, as much as I love Mon empreur, I am a loyal servant of His Majesty the King!

How have I only just found this channel!!!

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Haha, well that's the great thing about YT it's all there waiting for you! Welcome!

The weather- starting at 11:35 instead of 9 - the Prussians would have been late. Marshall Nigh advancing with Calvary with no infantry support Keeping the Prussian army approach quiet from the army You touch on Napoleons health leaving the field to rest at a critical. Time

nice tone mate

Considering that Ney died for his Desicion even though his Lawyers gave him an out I would say that he gave his best.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

I absolutely think he did. Just he didn't really have anything left in the tank

@lordstarwars2214

11 ай бұрын

@@NapoleonicWargaming Definitely. It is quite curious. Some of Neys greatest Heroics occurred during the Retreat from Russia and yet it also changed him very profusely to the Man during the Hundred Days. It’s a strange thing the Human Psyche.

I get the feeling Napoleon was afraid of being outshone by Davout. It is like he wanted to keep him out of the limelight, favouring Eugene at the initial invasion of Russia.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Possibly. He certainly was at Jena! I get why he favoured Eugene though, bit that might just be due to my man crush on him 🤣

Biggest wives tail ever is : " waiting for the mud to dry out" is Krapooey . The Artillery and soldiers were getting stuck in the mud getting into position from bivouacs locations . Boots were coming off , hand rolling the Guns across the valley in the crops was slow and tedious. Why do you think Somerset 's Horse got bogged and then he was killed By the Lancers was not related to slow Artillery Park setup too ?

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

He certainly did attack with the urgency he needed to. It got light here about 4am today, so really the army should have been in position at 6am, maybe 7. Certainly the battle should have started by 8 at the very latest. I very nearly put number 1: Mount Tambora (thr volcano that caused the rain) but I wanted to keep it to things Boney had control over

@rhysnichols8608

10 ай бұрын

He waited for the ground to dry, but my 11am realised he couldn’t afford to wait any longer and started the battle anyway. And the mud at 11am was less severe than it would’ve been at 6am.

honestly if I had any money I would be a patron

I submit that Marshal Soult should have been left in Paris, Marshal Davout should have been Battlefield Commander NOT Marshal Ney and Marshal Van Dame should have commanded 2nd Corp.

regarding the weather this cause a major downside for the french artillery in 2 ways, as because of the muddy ground they could not start firing as early as they wanted and the their usual tactic with bouncing off cannon balls did not work otherwise agree specially on the Marshals as having 3 others that could work well without him, would have made the biggest difference (like Napoleon being the main reason, a different SiC than Ney would have made a difference)

Napoleon could have won had he followed up Ligny with his old energy. All the reasons you list are very valid and certainly part of it. Lethargic and uninspired sums up Napoleon. He probably burned himself out recreating the army after his return.

So that a Swedish pop group could write a song about it a couple centuries later

It seems by sending Grouchy with a full corp to keep the Prussians from rejoining was a mistake he always hoped his enemies would make. He should have just sent some scouts out and leave it at that.

@NapoleonicWargaming

6 ай бұрын

Yeah. As an experienced light cavalry commander, that was a huge oversight. I believe he had some out, but clearly not enough!

Regarding leadership I have never seen an analysis showing how many colonels, brigadiers and generals refused to follow Napoleon in 1815, but if they were anything like the 'maréchals de France' that would mean a rough 50% (I may forget someone but out of my head Berthier, Jourdan, Lefebvre, Victor, Macdonald, Marmont, Oudinot and Saint Cyr refused) Certainly some of the men commanding divisions in 1815 weren't top choices. Bourmont could perhaps be justified for political reasons, but men like Donzelot (out in the Ionian isles from 1807 to 1814) or Simmer (mostly a staff officer and only promoted to 'général de division' in April 1815) suggest Napoleon was very much scraping the bottom of the barrel...

kzread.info/dash/bejne/fqCIm7Knppqcqs4.html This is the main reason Napoleon lost Waterloo. Sault was a terrible chief of staff. Berthier always write Napoleon's orders in triplicate and sent them by different aides. The confusion of lost and confused orders at Waterloo lost him the battle.

@isidroramos1073

11 ай бұрын

'Terrible' is going too far in my humble opinion, as Soult has experience in staff work and was always good at planning, logistics, etc, but he was no Berthier, if only because Napoleon and Berthier had worked together for almost 20 years; no newcomer could be expected to fill those shoes in a matter of days.

Point five is the major point. Napoleon lost Waterloo due to his narcissistic personality. He indeed left Davout in Paris as stated in this thread. Grouchy and (need to look up the general that marched and countermarched between Quatre Bras and Ligny.) In both cases Grouchy and the other one didn't march towards the sound of the guns. Well, Ney you treat completely incorrectly. He performed top notch. Had Ney's orders been followed then Quatra Bras would have been won and there would't have been a Waterloo. Brussels would have fallen. Then God knows what would have happend. Also true if the same general had marched to Ligny Napoleon would have one. Ney acted correctly at Quatra Bras being blocked by the Dutch general Bernhard van Lipe Biesterveld. Who acted as if his force was the main Anglo Dutch force spreading out in a thin line. Ney had no option but to wait. Commiting a brigade to check that out if indeed the main body might lose Napoleon the battle by defeat in detail. Quatra Bras was a strategic draw because it served the purpose of making Waterloo as chosen battle ground possible. Bernhard acted witout orders BTW whilst Welington was having a party. Then Napoleon not being his best was due to his stomache ache due to his suicide (mental narcisistic todler) attempt after his first forced abdication by........Ney. Ney fought for France and Napoleon for Naploleon. The arsinic from Russia had lost its potentcy. It lost Napoleon the battle and his life due to stomach cancer. Only a pharmacist and pathologist need to confirm my findings so far on Napoleons death. Arsenic in hair remains in body and black honeycomb stomach. Then Ney again won Waterloo for Napoleon with his cavalry charge. Pre planed with Napoleon only correctly executed when Ney saw signs of weakness in the British lines. Moving troops from right to left. Ney succesfully pushed the Brits into square. And cept them there once commited. Of course not spiking the guns because the should have been capured and turned on the squares with the Frence infantry in line. Victory Napoleon. Here aswell Napoleon didn't want his glory stolen by Ney as Davon had done before. When he came back on the field he blamed Ney instead of comitting his Old Guard. Then he would have won Waterloo before Blucher could play the decisive role he did. Ney lost it knowing that by not getting the required and pre planed backing they lost the battle he won and that he, Ney would face a firing squad rather than flee. You take to the British narritive and that of Napoleon who wrote the book. Then in the Britisch army museum there is/was a very nice maquette depicting the Old Guard in square marching toward Wellingtons excellently pre planed thin red line. Both the British and French cavalry were spent. Well, this omits part of the truth. The Dutch general Chaussee with his artillery flank the Old Guard recieving shots from line to small front and flanking artillery. They thus broke. When also true what the film Waterloo depicts then first riding in front and then bacling off becaise deemed too dangerious is a deadly mistake by Napoleon. So, Napoleon lost Waterloo due to him being a narcisist on three counts: Davout, Ney, and suicide attempt. Ney won Watsrloo for him twice.

@ramuner2816

10 ай бұрын

Completely agree! Ney fought for France❤while Napoleon for his own ambitions. Napoleon lost Waterloo due to him being a narcisist on three counts: Davout, Ney, and suicide attempt. 100% truth.

Down with dysentery? Or bodily-swapped (by Ney) with a lunatic who looked the part?

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Hahaha, love it!

The most evidential reason, why Napoleon lost Waterloo, was named at the advertisement of one mobile telecommunications company in far 1996's (at that time very few people had mobile phones), which contained the following text: "Do you know, why Napoleon lost Waterloo? (sorrowful Napoleon looking to the battlefield after the lost battle). Because he did not have a mobile phone! Buy your phone, and you will always be a winner!" (smiling Napoleon on the battlefield talking on a mobile phone). This advertisement is unrivalled, because this is indeed the pure truth 😄

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Hahaha

Napoleon lost because he didn't drinked his coffe in the morning

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Ah mate I hear that. I am inoperable without coffee. I did once read a week that genuinely attributed the enlightenment to the stimulating effect of coffee!

Obvious, trying to take Hougoumont was a major error. It has been said that it it was a diversionary attack to draw in Wellington's reserves. Whatever it was, it escalated into an all-day battle, sucking in ever increasing numbers of French soldiers,

0:22 How odd that a CGI photo has a contrail in it? AI is Back to the Future!

Just started the video…interested if Grouchy is a reason…I’ll be back once I’ve completed!

@robnixon8832

11 ай бұрын

2:53 iiiiii knew it! Now I’ll wait to see about the death of berthier…

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

@@robnixon8832 didn't mention him because that was something beyond his control.

@robnixon8832

11 ай бұрын

@@NapoleonicWargaming fair, although if he didn’t die then I guess Davout would have been available…

5 reasons Napoleon lost Waterloo? The Prussians, the Prussians, the Prussians, the Prussians,the Prussians.

British line against a French column ,do the maths.

The poor man was not very well?

Your factors are good re leadership but not so convinced on the quality of either allied army. Wellington’s army was a real mix of raw troops and, some veteran units. It was not the best British army of the period, that was definitely the 1813-14 peninsula army. Likewise with the Army of the Rhine, which contained contingents which were recently French allies and not up for the war eg the Saxons. The best Prussian units were with their main army back in Germany. Napoleon defeated the Prussians at Ligny, it was the poor staff work which let him down, where the opportunity to knock them and then Wellington out was presented. Eg D’Erlon none appearance on 16th. So I think the opportunity for Napoleon to win the campaign was largely lost by 18th

I would dare say that what killed Buonaparte some 6 years later is what hampered his abilities at Waterloo. He probably didn't have cancer yet, but whatever it was, I postulate that it eventually did become his cancer which killed him. If he were more fit to actually take a more "micromanaging" role which he was known for during his more successful campaigns, I'm sure he would have required his Marshals and generals to execute his more adaptive tactics instead of wasting men in crude direct attacks.

@danduerkop1370

11 ай бұрын

He was slowly poisoned by the british

@jimm3093

11 ай бұрын

@@danduerkop1370 I wouldn't doubt it. Many wanted him dead, I could perceive royalists who wanted to restore the House of Bourbon being financed by the British to assisinate him.

@thatguyinelnorte

11 ай бұрын

@@danduerkop1370 "That sounds like Russian propaganda!" Or does it?

Scotland Forever!

If you ever read Les Miserables, you would know the reason Napoleon lost was because it had rained the night before, and his army had difficulty positioning their guns.

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

That was certainly the theory for a long time. Hugo lived there so he certainly knows the terrain! The mud would certainly have hampered positioning the guns, but it I think there were far more systemic problems than that

@tbjtbj7930

11 ай бұрын

That's Hugo's excuse. He also invented a sunken road to explain the failure of the French cavalry charges. He was a novelist, not a historian. Dry weather might have allowed the bombardment to start earlier, but it would also have allowed the Prussians to move faster.

@alancaron984

11 ай бұрын

His father was an officer in Napoleon’s army!

@alancaron984

11 ай бұрын

His father was an officer in Napoleon’s army!

@alancaron984

11 ай бұрын

His father was an officer in Napoleon’s army!

My 5 takes on this: 1. He returned to soon. Maybe if he waited another year, sending out agitators to incite another coup, and hoping the Allies would go their separate ways maybe he had a better chance 2. Marshal Berthier. He...was not there. 3. Inconclusive orders. Berthier could make orders out of Napoleons ideas. Soult, probably still wasn`t used to Napoleon and vic versa. Nays vague orders concerning Quatre Bras, D`Erlons corps walking around. Sending of Grouchy with orders not including a primary order to march to the guns. Napoleon doesn't like independent Thinkers. Grouchy knew that, and obeyed. 4. Reccon. Napoleon had not much of understanding on where everybody was. Crucial, the failure to detect that the Prussians moved to Wavre and not Liege. 5. Napoleon himself. Sending Nay out to occupy Quatre Bras, KNOWING Nay was next to useless as an independent commander was a big plunder. Leaving the Prussian more or less alone to reform. Napoleon had not even his B game on

Nice post. 👏🏻👏🏻 Davout = Da-voo (not Dav-oh). 😉

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

Fair! Though if they wanted me to pronounce his name correctly they should have won the war... ;)

@rgg1965

11 ай бұрын

🤣🤣 excellent channel!

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

@@rgg1965 thanks dude!

@ronaldmessina4229

11 ай бұрын

Another selfish idiot who wants all of the language in anglosajón..All languages are correct to express the situation

Napoleon lost the battle??😮

@NapoleonicWargaming

11 ай бұрын

SPOILER ALERT!

Sorry l made a hash of my comment but amy not going to type it out again.